Thursday, April 19, 2007

The Killjoys at the Times

As most people know by now, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the ban on partial birth abortion, clarifying that it is, at least from now on, illegal to pull a human being three-fourths of the way out of his or her mother's womb before using a pair of scissors to puncture his or her skull, and then compress his or her head before removing his or her corpse from his or her mother. Most of us are celebrating this decision.

Most of us don't work for the New York Times.

In the Times' sobering editorial which reads somewhat like a parody of the Times written by a conservative would read, yesterday's decision was all about denying women the right to choose. (It aggravates me both as a pro-lifer and a former English major that liberals never finish that sentence. Choose what? Ice cream? Toenail polish? Mid twentieth-century avant garde poetry? Oh, you want the right to choose to have some white-coated glorified hit man stick scissors into your child's head? How utterly dreadful of you.)

But nothing in the whole irrational mess on the Times' editorial page is as idiotic as their unfortunate choice of words in this sentence, emphasis mine: "The justices went so far as to eviscerate the crucial requirement, which dates to the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, that all abortion regulations must have an exception to protect a woman’s health."

Aside from the fact that I always thought it was the companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, that added the health requirement (but I could be wrong; I can't read penumbra emanations or tea leaves), someone really should have told the Times' editorial writers that you don't want to use the word "eviscerate" in a piece about abortion, particularly in a piece in which you are expressing your sadness and anger at the fact that women will no longer have the right to choose that wonderful healthcare option that involves having someone stick a pair of scissors into your unwanted offspring's head, to make it easier to remove her brain, thus facilitating the removal of the last bit of her now-dead body from your birth canal.

The Times, with appropriate Gravitas, reminds us that the Supreme Court Justices are not doctors. Presumably, only doctors could possibly have understood all the complex medical evidence showing just how necessary it is to make sure the unborn human you're killing in an abortion is actually dead before his head emerges. Presumably, only doctors are capable of diagnosing those serious maternal health complaints that make it necessary to induce labor and force a breach delivery, and then deliver most of the child before undertaking the business involving the scissors. Ordinary laymen and garden-variety Supreme Court judges just can't process that type of specialized information, don't you know; it's only possible for abortion doctors, left-wing journalists, and Ruthie Ginsburg, who receives the predictable accolades of the even more tiresomely predictable editorialists.

No comments: